This is insane, there should be fines for frivolous lawsuits like this.
this post was submitted on 20 Nov 2024
266 points (96.5% liked)
Technology
59587 readers
2481 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
This is why he moved to Texas
And changed the twitter ToS to require suits in a specific part of texas.
Elon Musk's X updated its terms of service to steer user lawsuits to US District Court for the Northern District of Texas, the same court where a judge who bought Tesla stock is overseeing an X lawsuit against the nonprofit Media Matters for America.
The new terms that apply to users of the X social network say that all disputes related to the terms "will be brought exclusively in the US District Court for the Northern District of Texas or state courts located in Tarrant County, Texas, United States, and you consent to personal jurisdiction in those forums and waive any objection as to inconvenient forum."
X recently moved its headquarters from San Francisco to Texas, but the new headquarters are not in the Northern District or Tarrant County. X's headquarters are in Bastrop, the county seat of Bastrop County, which is served by US District Court for the Western District of Texas.
Amazing how terms of service apparently carry the same weight as laws, yet can be changed arbitrarily by businesses on a whim.
It also wouldn't fly in the EU anyway.
Any lawsuits have to be brought in the country in which the citizen bringing the suit lives. So if I wanted to sue Twitter I literally would have to do them where I live. There is no way for me to sue them in Texas since I'm not a citizen of Texas or the US.
How likely is that chunk to be thrown out for being obviously ridiculous?
In a past life, pretty plausible.
Now that Elmo is the First Lady, this is the best TOS that's ever been written by anyone ever. It's perfect. It probably trumps the constitution because of how perfect it is.
According to the article, not that likely:
Terms requiring users to sue in specific courts are usually enforceable, Vanderbilt Law School Professor Brian Fitzpatrick told Ars today. "There might be an argument that there was no consent to the new terms, but if you have to click on something at some point acknowledging you read the new terms, consent will probably be found," he told us in an email.
A user attempting to sue X in a different state or district probably wouldn't get very far. "If a suit was filed in the wrong court, it would be dismissed (if filed in state court) or transferred (if filed in federal court)," Fitzpatrick said.
It seems insane to me that the US system lets you literally specify the exact judge (that you've already bought and paid for) as the only judge that can hear cases against you. And that the system is basically OK with this.
It's also insane that a judge with a vested interest in one of the claimants, doesn't have to automatically recuse themselves.
They do... It's just not expected that they won't
Pains of being a prototype democracy and all... If only the founding fathers had explicitly told us our system would need reform as issues came up
There are. In most states.
He's having the suits filed specifically in one of the few states that don't.
Man-child cries to the government that no-one wants to play with him.
Doesn't he have a rather large role in the party of small government?
Co-head of a newly created department of efficiency.
It's all so painfully stupid.
One named DOGE because meeeeeeeeeeeeemz.
Idiocracy draws closer every day
Doesn't change the fact that he's a man-child crying that no-one wants to give him money to advertise on his sinking-ship platform.
Yeah. The one that say the government should not interfere with companies except when another company inconveniences him.
Can I sue Elon for not advertising on my car window? Its only $1k/day
Yes. Every company is colluding to not advertise on your window. Which is the definition of antitrust.
Such a facepalm concept
Capitalists. We can't regulate businesses, if a corporation is opperating unsafe, harming the environment, spreading hateful messages etc.... the only check and balance we need is the free market, and the consumers voting with their wallets.
Consumers vote with their wallets, This is unspeakable... we need the government to regulate to make sure the consumers don't organize and vote with their wallets.
The thing is Twitter costs, even at its height, under a billion a year to run.
He could pull all advertising and run it to the end of his life as a hobby.
But he can't have that, because the line must go up and the workers must cower in fear whenever their boss stalks the building.
That and one of the thing with rich people is that they hate losing money whatever happens.
So technically Melon could run Twitter at a loss for years but at one point, he will simply abandon it.
He bought it to manipulate the election but at the same time would also like it to make profit because he's an unreasonable prick.
This was never going to end well.
he will simply abandon it.
That's sounds wonderful, let's go with that option
initiative to withhold “billions of dollars in advertising revenue”
That's how he sees it, huh? He is entitled to your money by default, and you're the problem if you ever stop giving him money?
Can't wait for this to be thrown out of court. No one is forced to buy anything on his neo-nazi platform
It should be thrown out but Elon is Trump now and Trump will make sure his platforms are protected.
First Amendment something something...
~~List of people who were mean to me and should be spanked~~ Case No. 7:24-cv-00114-K IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WICHITA FALLS DIVISION
Twitch currently has a pretty effective moderation method for making sure certain topics or games don't get featured on their platform.
For example, you can be in a bikini, that's fine, but you can't show feet.
You also can't play the socom games from PS2, because of the idea of glorifying terrorists. Since if they win, the announcer says "terrorists win".
The point I'm making is, these are abstract concepts that need human monitoring. It wouldn't be that hard to add twitter/X conversations to that list.
So like, if you have a twitter, you can't use your twitter on your away screens, or talk about it on stream. The same way you can't give out an only fans link.
And twitch is owned by amazon. If they REALLY wanted to piss off musk, they could buy bluesky and make it the official microblogging service for all amazon owned services.
So if you have an amazon account, now you have a bluesky account.
And all the actors who act in yhe prime shows? They get signed into bluesky exclusive interaction contracts. Where they only interact with fans on bluesky.
As for CVS? They're a struggling drug store chain. Amazon already owns whole foods. A grocery store. Would it really be too far out of the realm of plausibility to see them adopt CVS into their too big to fail ecosystem?
You also can’t play the socom games from PS2, because of the idea of glorifying terrorists. Since if they win, the announcer says “terrorists win”.
Wouldn't the same apply to Counter-Strike? Did they change it since the last time I played ages ago?
It is unlikely that Amazon will buy Bluesky, but it is likely that Amazon will do its own fork of Bluesky.
Amazon already has their own pharmacy, btw. They even bought a prescription delivery service a few years back, called PillPack or something. Buying CVS would give them brick and mortar stores for the pharmacy they already run online.
As much as I hate Amazon and their overreach into every sector of the economy, I'd love to see them bring the full might of their lawyers against Musk.
And all the actors who act in yhe prime shows? They get signed into bluesky exclusive interaction contracts. Where they only interact with fans on bluesky.
I'm honestly surprised they haven't tried something like this via partnering with some platform. I think the unions would kill them... But I'm still surprised they haven't tried it. Sports teams/leagues too.
This one makes no sense at all. No company will want to advertise there for fear of litigation.
It would be interesting to see how that plays out in court. That clip shows that the CEO himself is aware of the concerns, and refuses to address them. It also implicitly acknowledges that the reasoning was because of those issues, and not a conspiracy to harm ex-Twitter.